Want a "Teacherpreneur" Making Education Policy?
At the Times, Lynne Varner continues her string of unintentionally funny editorial pieces. She starts out right:
If we’re going to talk about money, let’s talk about the future of teaching because nearly 80 percent of education spending goes toward salaries.
Okay, BUT when 22% of American children (and that's about the same here in Washington State) live in poverty and you ignore that fact, then you are missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle.
As well, most of the money may go to salaries but the Legislature is not funding schools enough to provide funds for other needs. Your biggest and most primary need is always going to be a teacher.
She then says:
A recent Seattle Times front-page story pointed to a rapprochement between teachers and ed reformers at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Imagine if the two sides had been working together all along.
Well, I 'm sure the teachers (and their unions) would have been more than happy to work with Gates but he (and his minions) were the ones bad-mouthing teachers. Varner knows this but is happy to make it sound like both sides ignored each other.
Then she gets to a TFA-push idea:
The future of teaching is foreshadowed by fledgling organizations such as Teachers United and the empowering rhetoric of “teacherpreneurs,” those über-teachers who mentor and make policy when they’re not in the classroom.
Really? Like people who have 5 weeks of training, teach for two years and then are education "experts" who should make policy and run schools? Nope.
She then talks about use of technology but leaves out the HOW that will happen in an organized manner? She speaks of her son using the Khan Academy videos at home. Great but how do you translate that to a larger scale? She doesn't say.
She asks about future teacher training and curiously doesn't mention the new alt cert Seattle Teacher Residency program through SPS, the Alliance for Education, UW and SEA. We want new and varied types of teachers? Here's how to do it and yet she says nothing about it.
We rate and reward students based on performance. Why not teachers?
Really? How do we reward students' performance? Does she mean by promotion or what? Again, she tries to make a point without explaining it.
It's frustrating to see such limited and unclear writing that will leave the average reader saying, "Sure that sounds good" without considering the how and why of what she suggests.
If we’re going to talk about money, let’s talk about the future of teaching because nearly 80 percent of education spending goes toward salaries.
Okay, BUT when 22% of American children (and that's about the same here in Washington State) live in poverty and you ignore that fact, then you are missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle.
As well, most of the money may go to salaries but the Legislature is not funding schools enough to provide funds for other needs. Your biggest and most primary need is always going to be a teacher.
She then says:
A recent Seattle Times front-page story pointed to a rapprochement between teachers and ed reformers at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Imagine if the two sides had been working together all along.
Well, I 'm sure the teachers (and their unions) would have been more than happy to work with Gates but he (and his minions) were the ones bad-mouthing teachers. Varner knows this but is happy to make it sound like both sides ignored each other.
Then she gets to a TFA-push idea:
The future of teaching is foreshadowed by fledgling organizations such as Teachers United and the empowering rhetoric of “teacherpreneurs,” those über-teachers who mentor and make policy when they’re not in the classroom.
Really? Like people who have 5 weeks of training, teach for two years and then are education "experts" who should make policy and run schools? Nope.
She then talks about use of technology but leaves out the HOW that will happen in an organized manner? She speaks of her son using the Khan Academy videos at home. Great but how do you translate that to a larger scale? She doesn't say.
She asks about future teacher training and curiously doesn't mention the new alt cert Seattle Teacher Residency program through SPS, the Alliance for Education, UW and SEA. We want new and varied types of teachers? Here's how to do it and yet she says nothing about it.
We rate and reward students based on performance. Why not teachers?
Really? How do we reward students' performance? Does she mean by promotion or what? Again, she tries to make a point without explaining it.
It's frustrating to see such limited and unclear writing that will leave the average reader saying, "Sure that sounds good" without considering the how and why of what she suggests.
Comments
"I wonder how many of you know that Seattle is offering contingency contracts to ALL of the candidates who finish that program AND the mentor teachers are being paid a $3,500 stipend paid for BY THE DISTRICT, not UW like in all other programs. Jonathan Knapp from SEA was part of the group who agreed to this--without giving the details to the rest of us.
THAT is money which will come out of the classroom."
I knew SPS was going to be expected to pick up the bill in a few years, but I didn't know it was already happening.
These contingency contracts are offered only to the STR residents who successfully complete a program that is more rigorous than UW, SPU, SU, or other programs offer, they're not being guaranteed a job unless they meet high requirements. Also, they will have to interview, apply, and get a position like anyone else (myself included, many years ago) who has been recruited with a contingency contract.
The mentor teachers are currently receiving a stipend paid for out of a grant - it's not coming from district dollars. That is inaccurate. My guess is that eventually, being a teacher who trains district-trained recruits will be another career-ladder position.
--Teacher
Could you identify that grant? Is it TIF? Or is it the supplemental levy, passed to implement the many career-ladder positions pushed by LEV/OSC?
I have a problem with a defacto contract for every STR recruit, over other teachers who compete for contracts. Must be nice...
Nick Esparza
It's a silly and effectively racist strategy to sell out the least powerful students in society. But THEN you make it 'fair' by ruining education for all students to try and cover up that racism.
I will no longer even tolerate the attempt to equate this as an alternative for proper teaching.
-Demosthenes
I have always cared about accountability. This blog was the place that first raised the red flag on the Silas Potter scandal.
We don't follow trends here; we pretty much allow the news of the day - from our sources, other media sources and our readers - to lead the stories.
Further more you argue that you let the news of the day lead the discussion, well that's fine. But continually decrying the Seattle Times doesn't make your opinion any stronger. Try putting forth some solutions. Having a complaint and not offering a solution the SPS or even to your readers is exactly what's wrong with bloggers. Try something risky like offering your alternative. OR you could do something really outrageous and actually do something about it. Run for a seat on the school board, organize a community group. Make some noise that people can't ignore.
I started and ran one of the No on 1240 campaigns. You can't put yourself out there much more than that.
An ill-formed opinion doesn't help your arguments.